Programs: Qantas FF Plat; AC SE; Virgin Aust Gold; Qatar Priv, Royal Air Maroc, SPG Gold
Posts: 624
Life jackets & safety demo on YYJ-YVR
Having a bit of a discussion elsewhere about the lack of a life jacket demo on AC Jazz on flights between YVR and YYJ (at least in my experience).
I thought it was wierd, because in spite of the short hop, the plane could make a soft landing on water, where life jackets would be required.
Others made the point that life jackets aren't required if the plane is not going beyond 20km of land (I think that was the distance), so none on board and no demo.
Does anyone know if YYJ/YVR flights on AC Jazz actually have life jackets on board?
If yes, why no demo? What's the downside?
If no, I guess that plane is prohibited from going X km from land?
Since the plane travel close to shore, jazz several years back removed life jackets on board. The seat cushion is a floatation device that you can take it off and hug on to it.
(1) No person shall conduct a take-off or a landing on water in an aircraft or operate an aircraft over water beyond a point where the aircraft could reach shore in the event of an engine failure, unless a life preserver, individual flotation device or personal flotation device is carried for each person on board.
(2) No person shall operate a land aeroplane, gyroplane, helicopter or airship at more than 50 nautical miles from shore unless a life preserver is carried for each person on board.
(3) No person shall operate a balloon at more than two nautical miles from shore unless a life preserver, individual flotation device or personal flotation device is carried for each person on board.
(4) For aircraft other than balloons, every life preserver, individual flotation device and personal flotation device referred to in this section shall be stowed in a position that is easily accessible to the person for whose use it is provided, when that person is seated.
There are also two other significant considerations that permit the carrier to safely dispense with the life jackets and the ditching demo:
1) The aircraft can easily maintain level flight in the event of failure of one engine, and ;
2) The aircraft is always within gliding distance of land.
Those two considerations make the probability of a ditching 'extremely remote', and in aircraft operations, it is generally not necessary to make allowances for possibilities that are 'extremely remote'.
Programs: AP*SE, HH*G, SPG*G, Delta Privilege P+, Avis First
Posts: 1,783
I would be more worried of the hard impact these vintage aircraft would have hitting the water. Not all pilots are like Capt Scully nor are those planes newer A320's
__________________
2013: 69,659 AQM with 73 AQS
2012:181,353 status miles with 155 segments
I was once on a Southwest flight from Reno to Las Veges, had the life jacket demo, which I found strange as we were flying over the desert. Probably in case we had to land in the fountain of the Bellagio. (Although there are a few sizable lakes in the area).
I would be more worried of the hard impact these vintage aircraft would have hitting the water. Not all pilots are like Capt Scully nor are those planes newer A320's
Eh, they were manufactured by DeHaviland... They could probably survive an impact with a mountainside, and still take off. Seriously though, I would rather be on a STOL aircraft (such as the Dash-8, Twin Otter, etc..) if I had to ditch since they can fly a lot slower and are generally built stronger.
Eh, they were manufactured by DeHaviland... They could probably survive an impact with a mountainside, and still take off. Seriously though, I would rather be on a STOL aircraft (such as the Dash-8, Twin Otter, etc..) if I had to ditch since they can fly a lot slower and are generally built stronger.
+1
Add to that the high wing and engine configuration. Most of the aviation world is baffled by how Sully managed to ditch without cartwheeling due to the low wing mounted engines.
Add to that the high wing and engine configuration. Most of the aviation world is baffled by how Sully managed to ditch without cartwheeling due to the low wing mounted engines.
He cites Airbus' normal law/alternate law allowing him to focus on the task at hand of navigation and slowing the plane instead of stall mitigation. Strange how what made AF447 crash was instrumental in saving US1549.
That said, the boat anchors under the wings hitting the water and not flipping the plane over is a downright mystery to me too.
Having a bit of a discussion elsewhere about the lack of a life jacket demo on AC Jazz on flights between YVR and YYJ (at least in my experience).
I thought it was wierd, because in spite of the short hop, the plane could make a soft landing on water, where life jackets would be required.
Others made the point that life jackets aren't required if the plane is not going beyond 20km of land (I think that was the distance), so none on board and no demo.
Does anyone know if YYJ/YVR flights on AC Jazz actually have life jackets on board?
If yes, why no demo? What's the downside?
Well, maybe because the demo would be WAY too funny: There are no life vests aboard so you need to use your seat cushion. Do not pull it over your head, you cannot. Do not blow into the straw, there is none. Do not look for a whistle, outta luck again. And there is no light that comes on in contact with water, you need to use that flashlight that was confiscated at security. You can still however wrap both arms tightly around the seat cushion while still aboard, and say your prayers. Remember, your safety and security is our foremost consideration. Have a good flight.
Insert photo of an FA demonstating how to hold on to a seat cushion.
Last edited by bingocallerb22; Nov 28, 12 at 12:40 pm..
Programs: Qantas FF Plat; AC SE; Virgin Aust Gold; Qatar Priv, Royal Air Maroc, SPG Gold
Posts: 624
Thanks all, most enlightening.
Obviously the regs prevail, but personally I can easily see situations where the YYJ/YVR flight might ditch in the water (there may not be that much choice). Even if there is choice, I wouldn't think that a ditching on water Vs one on land (?forest?, ?populated area?) would be so cut-and-dried in all cases that a prudent airline would say "Life Jackets? Nah, we'll never need 'em".
That said, depending on your definition of AC, I guess they have!
I'll take my own inflatable duckie on my next flight.
Obviously the regs prevail, but personally I can easily see situations where the YYJ/YVR flight might ditch in the water (there may not be that much choice). Even if there is choice, I wouldn't think that a ditching on water Vs one on land (?forest?, ?populated area?) would be so cut-and-dried in all cases that a prudent airline would say "Life Jackets? Nah, we'll never need 'em".
That said, depending on your definition of AC, I guess they have!
I'll take my own inflatable duckie on my next flight.
What are the chances of a double engine failure, on planes that I might add rarely fail versus other aircraft types? And this, being outside of a glide path to YVR or YYJ.
Would you not be MUCH more concerned flying a CRJ YHZ-YYT?
As someone else pointed out, Jazz has removed all life jackets from their planes. They do stay close to shore.
Also, I just want to point out that on the YVR-YYJ route (along with the other YVR-island flights), it's not just land, but the airports that are close by. If a YVR-YYJ flight had a mechanical problem, it's really within 5-ish minutes of either airport, at the furthest.
Programs: Qantas FF Plat; AC SE; Virgin Aust Gold; Qatar Priv, Royal Air Maroc, SPG Gold
Posts: 624
Hey, I'm not dying in the ditch about this, but to answer your question:
Quote:
Originally Posted by hearna
What are the chances of a double engine failure, on planes that I might add rarely fail versus other aircraft types? And this, being outside of a glide path to YVR or YYJ.
<snip>
.. the answer would be "finite". But doesn't need a double engine failure. How about a westerly take-off from YVR (ie over water), with a birdstrike on one engine at the point of, or very soon after lift-off (slow speed, negligable altitude) and maybe an over-weight plane? I reckon a fair chance of ending up in the drink. Sure, close to help, but so was US1549 and I bet those folks were glad to have their life jackets.
And sure, its very, very unlikely, but many plane accidents result from the very, very unlikely combination of things going wrong.
The weight of opinion here clearly is that 'no life jackets' on this sector isn't a problem. I'm just genuinely surprised they made a calculated decision that life jackets would never be needed. I'll have a look at that older thread now - thanks CD_YOW for posting it.
Seriously though, I would rather be on a STOL aircraft (such as the Dash-8, Twin Otter, etc..) if I had to ditch since they can fly a lot slower and are generally built stronger.
